From now on you need to Google or Wikipedia your facts and have them posted accurately, or your opinion is atrocious and a waste of my time. j/k on my part of course

Well it certainly helps to be well informed AX, regardless of whatever resources you choose to use, which is common knowledge extends to Alex Jones...awesome. Again, I realize that isn't the case for some here, as tossing out incorrect information seems to be habit forming for some. But again, I'm the elitist a-hole who cites factual information, rather than a blog. How dare I use real sources and toss out real facts. That is Bush League.

I never said either of those things (with all that education you can't read it seems).

You have made it perfectly clear that my posts are my opinions, which is completely true. I base my opinion off of my own knowledge and my morals/beliefs. Which coincides with the Bill of Rights (which do change to reflect the times in case you wanna bring that argument up).

Also, and lets see if you can follow this, the Bill of Rights was votes into existence by the founding fathers. Which means the majority of them agreed with those Rights, apparently those same founding fathers did not agree with Jefferson wanting the constitution to be changed/amended every 19 years.

Which obviously means it wasn't just Madison but was the majority of the founding fathers. So why is Jefferson's opinion greater than the majority?

Well it certainly helps to be well informed AX, regardless of whatever resources you choose to use, which is common knowledge extends to Alex Jones...awesome. Again, I realize that isn't the case for some here, as tossing out incorrect information seems to be habit forming for some. But again, I'm the elitist a-hole who cites factual information, rather than a blog. How dare I use real sources and toss out real facts. That is Bush League.

There you go again, Ill post anything and its from Alex Jones. Not that I have a problem with Alex personally, but damn Ill post something I copied and pasted directly from the White House and you still think it comes from Alex Jones. Alex Jones will post a Bill on his website, but it comes from Alex Jones because it came from me posting it, which must have come from Alex Jones and he has slaves in his basement who are photoshop experts, and even fool you with links to a website that looks like the White House's website.

So Ill tell you what, its going to be 60 degrees tomorrow in Washington, but its coming from me so it comes from Alex which although he used the Weather Channel as a source it came from me then Alex so instead of discussing the weather we all know Alex didnt graduate college which only means he does not have the credentials for, well anything including reporting the weather which they get all wrong all the time anyways and Weather Channel is just a conspiracy website because Alex Jones goes on there all the time and....nevermind.

And for the record, even if you had 8 years instead of 19, the logic stands in context.

And contextually speaking your argument against the words of Thomas Jefferson for being a slave owner/upper elite, yet espousing and upholding the words of Madison who was also part of the same class system...contradictory. Context.

And contextually speaking your argument against the words of Thomas Jefferson for being a slave owner/upper elite, yet espousing and upholding the words of Madison who was also part of the same class system...contradictory. Context.

You are editing the applicable context of Jeffersons slave agenda vs. the context of the Bill of Rights being interpreted and applied as a stand alone document, judged by it's content and not its author, for the second time.

You are starting to look like a dumb ass to win an argument that never really made sense to begin with.

At this point I am convinced that this little 'debate' is over. He has stooped to arguing semantics, he has no valid argument against anything that was presented and he hasn't made one for the last ~60 minutes or so (brb checking the times to be 100% on that).

He has no point to make and is only trying to invalidate the opinions of others because they aren't spoon fed to him by a professor.

He never has a point to make, he maybe puts up a good fight for the first couple of posts but then he is always confronted by an opinion that isn't in his Book of Political Rebuttals.

The worst part is that he actually believes he is somehow winning here, its like in his mind if he ignores something it never happened. Must be from getting smacked around in a ring too much.

You are editing the applicable context of Jeffersons slave agenda vs. the context of the Bill of Rights being interpreted and applied as a stand alone document, judged by it's content and not its author, for the second time.

You are starting to look like a dumb ass to win an argument that never really made sense to begin with.

Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens.Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite, a lot like Thomas Jefferson.

I'm off to bed, feel free to hammer away at me until the morning. However, note what's posted above...FACTUAL. Night.

Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens.Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite.

Blacks were suppressed by man, not the laws in the Bill of Rights. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that rights apply only to white man?

Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens.Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite.

I'm off to bed, feel free to hammer away at me until the morning. However, note what's posted above...FACTUAL. Night.

Is it that way now or do ALL of those people have those rights?

Hooray for change!

Its weird how they are the same but are expanded to meet the needs of newer generations.

Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens.Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite.

I'm off to bed, feel free to hammer away at me until the morning. However, note what's posted above...FACTUAL. Night.

You are still playing a semantical game. The Bill of Rights is what it is, even if its own author was choosy about application. Your argument changes nothing and the facts are irrelevant.

Blacks were suppressed by man, not the laws in the Bill of Rights. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that rights apply only to white man?

The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change it. Per Article 4:
Quote:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. This simply meant all runaway slaves could no longer hope making it to a free state equated to freedom. Now was there ANYTHING in the Bill Of Rights that repealed this section of Article 4?

What about Article 1?

Quote:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

^^^ That wasn't repealed either.

The power to end slavery, it remained purely a matter of states rights and the Bill Of Rights did NOTHING to amend away existing provisions of the Constitution OR enlarge the powers of the federal government to abolish it. Not one of the first ten amendments did ANYTHING to repeal the sections of the Constitution that protected slavery but further set in stone the doctrine of states rights which could be used as a legal basis to perpetuate it, per the following:

The U.S. Constitution, as ratified in 1788 …

Forbade Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves for the following 20 years.

Mandated that a “person held to service or labor” in one state be “delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due.”

Enacted an uneasy compromise designed to end a long debate over whether to count slaves in population totals that would affect taxes and representation in Congress. Slaves, who had no rights whatsoever under the Constitution, were each counted as three fifths of a person for the purpose of these totals. The clause was the first of a long line of uneasy official compromises between white southerners and white northerners regarding slavery.

Obstacles and Opportunities

In 1793, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law to enforce the U.S. Constitution's demand that runaway slaves be returned to their masters; the law permitted those who owned slaves to cross state lines in order to regain physical control of their escaped “property.” Some Northern legislatures passed laws ensuring pursued slaves the right to trial by jury and the right to give testimony in court in these disputes.

Mandated that a “person held to service or labor” in one state be “delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due.”

Enacted an uneasy compromise designed to end a long debate over whether to count slaves in population totals that would affect taxes and representation in Congress. Slaves, who had no rights whatsoever under the Constitution, were each counted as three fifths of a person for the purpose of these totals. The clause was the first of a long line of uneasy official compromises between white southerners and white northerners regarding slavery.

Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924.

Your job right now, is to shut up and color. Do what you are told, when you are told. Carry yourself with respect.

The military hasn't changed in the last 100+ years. The goal and how you get there have always been the same. Defend the constitution by any means necessary. If that means your commanding officers wants you to spit shine his damn boots, you better drink up your gatorade now to ensure you can get them to be mirrors.

What did you join for then? The GI Bill... the Discount at Spencers?

Maybe fair was less of the correct term, how about considerate and at the least logical.
I understand everything about military culture, but me having an understanding of it, and disagreeing with it, are two different things.

Funny how you put that, in the end all result, yes, do what you're told, when you're told to do it. Now, that seems like they are breeding slaves...

What gets me is that somehow being human is thrown out the window here and a sense of entitlement gets embedded in people who are no better than their subordinates.

The grand scheme of the military maybe hasn't changed in the last 100 years, but it most certainly changed on every smaller area within. If you don't think so, then I'm going to flat out describe you as IGNORANT, UNAWARE, and UNEDUCATED. If my job was to defend the constitution, I would gladly put a bullet in the brains of anyone who threatened it, however that's obviously NOT my job because you don't see me doing that.

If my CO, who most likely never would even utter a word to me on a daily basis, wanted me to spit shine his boots... a bitch would go ahead and take care of that. A person who carries himself with respect, dignity, and pride would tell him that he can spit shine his own boots. Again, back to the sense of entitlement. The same goes for cross MOS and so forth.

You seem to have a very historic and ancient point of view on the military.

I have a soft spot for helping people and making a difference in the world, I thought this would be a adventurous 4 years in which I could accomplish those said goals. Neither of which was accomplished, pretty much wasted 4 years, which I do not regret only due to the small lessons learned and the 7 or 8 incredible people i've met that changed my life in a positive way, and vice versa.

GI Bill lol... my parents were fortunate enough to climb above the pit of poverty and do well for themselves. They were prepared to fund any school I wanted to go to. And yes, the 10% at spencers is too good to pass up.

Okay so not many people would vote for Thomas Jefferson according to you, based on the fact that he was a slave owner and member of the upper class, fair enough. Then in your very next statement, which conflicts entirely with your first time statement and here's why. You dismiss the slave owning Jefferson, yet uphold the Bill of Rights, which was written by another former president and one of the founding fathers...now follow along and connect it to your first statement about Jefferson. Who authored the Bill of Rights? Here's a hint, like many other Virginia statesmen in the slave society, he was a slaveholder and part of the élite; he inherited his plantation known asMontpelier and and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime to cultivate tobacco and other crops. So Thomas Jefferson and his writings dismissed as "weird" due to the fact he was a slave owner, and part of the upper class elite, and Madison who was also part of the elite along with being a slave owner is upheld and regarded highly in your book. Makes complete sense. I'll give you this, if anything you seem to be quite the student of history.

S. Paw, I am trying to catch up on this thread over my morning cup of coffee and have stopped at your post to remind you that paragraphs are a good thing!

Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924.

I will say this, I always admire it when one man takes on the whole lot, S. Paw is an idealist which is rare in the climate of the current culture.
When you say your going to bed and even after you brush your teeth and try to fall asleep, but can't because you keep thinking "What are they saying now!" "I must return and set them straight!"
If more Americans showed less apathy perhaps the country would not be in the unfortunate condition it is today.